Camouflaged and pre-planned episode

In reference to the article “A writer’s dilemma”  

Rebati Mohan Sinha

Can a handful of disgruntled group of misguided youths take the entire people seated in Sri Sri Radha Madhav Mandir, Maligaon, Guwahati, to ransom? Who were they to take the law in their own hands vis-à-vis leaving the venue (Malthep) of their own, forgetting their social responsibilities, disrupting the entire ritual on the baseless pretext? At the same time, what were invitees doing there at the venue? Have they ever tried to defuse the situation by stopping those henchmen distributing the leaflets and forcing people to leave the venue? Nay! Never. The entire drama was a camouflaged and pre-planned episode orchestrated by a wicked mind to humiliate the author of the book, in general public, who is, in fact, thought to be his rival, a retired colonel from Army, equivalent to a first class District Magistrate (DMO).

Although the explosion took place at the foothill of Kamakhya, namely the Maligaon malthep, the epicentre was elsewhere; but no one could come forward to indicate it. The name of the book in question is “Shahidor shraddha baro katohan yari” written about six years ago. A copy of the book was gifted to me by the author himself at his resident years back. I had never thought that the book would one day hurt a few Brahmins of Guwahati, who are not at all a priest of any leifam (mandir) and their professions are different than their ancestors.(some are servicemen/businessmen). In what capacity they were invited in the shraddha? Did they attend the ritual in Brahmin attire i.e., dhoti and panjabi? If they did not follow the simple dress code, how do they claim as......?

Earlier, people were known by the job they did, say, a vaishya, who does business and a kshatrya, who defends the country. Now a question may arise, a Brahmin who doesn’t perform puja as priest, instead he does business — how should we address him — a Brahmin because he is a son of a Brahmin or a vaishya because he is a businessman? In other way, when a Brahmin is asked about his profession, he replies, “I am a businessman, (a vaishya),” in this case, he is known in the society as businessman, a vaishya not as a Brahmin.

The discontentment of those aggrieved persons arises few questions:

1. First and foremost. Did they ever try to apprise the author, about their sentiments?

3. Did the aggrieved party try to bring to the notice of the society in Guwahati?

4. Was there any agreement between the thoupu (host) and the aggrieved party as far as the shraddha was concerned?

5. Was there any role to play by the BMDC members of district unit in a shraddha in general?

6. How could they summarily punish (social boycott) someone without hearing him his views?

7. Why should society honor their (Brahmins) verdict (social boycott)?

8. Why do they so adamant in spite of nothing derogatory found about Brahmins in the book by themselves? (refer Bisweshwar Sharma’s declaration).

9. Who all are they to compel author to bow his head when he is not guilty?

When these people have no portfolios (priesthood) in a society, how come they demand respect in this way?